Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 11th, 2021

[Fionnuala Ní Aoláin]

Thank you for the opportunity.

I will briefly state that my mandate has been in direct public communication with the Turkish government on its terrorism legislation, but most recently, in the last four months, on its adoption of countering terrorism finance legislation. This legislation is being used to directly target civil society, human rights defenders and those who dissent from the government.

We have made clear that the use of terrorism measures against civil society is a breach of international law. It is, in fact, a distortion of why we have counterterrorism measures in the first place.

I am deeply concerned that we have a number of governments—and this has been explicitly stated by my office to Turkey—that are misusing counterterrorism legislation to undermine legitimately protected actions—freedom of expression, speech, assembly, family life, right to participate in public affairs—by invoking the terminology of terrorism in order to have legitimacy and cover for actions that are inconsistent with international law.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have approximately one minute.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay.

I'll continue with the anti-terrorism measures.

What were the main targets—I emphasize the word “targets”—of anti-terrorism legislation?

[Fionnuala Ní Aoláin]

Are you asking me?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes.

[Fionnuala Ní Aoláin]

Do you mean in Turkey or more broadly?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm talking about Turkey.

[Fionnuala Ní Aoláin]

Specifically—and I'm happy to share the UN's communications on this issue, because the letter is public—the target is civil society. The targets are dissenters. The targets are those who disagree with the government.

We have raised these issues not only with Turkey but also with the FATF, the Financial Action Task Force.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We're moving to our last questioner.

MP McPherson, you have seven minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to deeply thank all of our witnesses for being with us today. This is harrowing testimony to be hearing. It's not the first time we've heard that at this committee, and I thank you for sharing it with us again. It's very important.

I want to start by looking at some of the testimony we've heard tonight. I thought I could start with you, Ms. Ní Aoláin. I'm sure I've not said your name correctly, and I apologize.

You spoke of the fact that Canadian nationals are being held by non-state actors, and that this is, in fact, against international law. It contravenes the law. I'm going to ask a few questions just to make sure we have it on the record and that it is clear. Is that accurate?

[Fionnuala Ní Aoláin]

Yes, because these individuals, Canadian nationals, have been subject to no legal process for their detention. They are being held arbitrarily in conditions that we believe meet the threshold for torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. That is not allowable. Whether it's a state or a non-state actor, that is not allowable under international humanitarian law, if we apply Protocol 2 or Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions, and it's clearly inconsistent with international human rights law.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In your opinion, is Canada, at this point, in contravention of, for example, the rights of the child?

[Fionnuala Ní Aoláin]

Canada and all of the other 57 states that have failed to repatriate their nationals are in clear breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly found on this issue, not specific to Canada but in relation to other nationals, that the continued arbitrary detention of children in these camps is a breach of the convention.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Deif, you spoke about the fact that currently Canada is, in effect, finding the Canadian nationals in Syria to be guilty by association. You say that this is against international human rights law.

Could you expand upon that? Is Canada breaking international law?

[Farida Deif]

Thank you for the question.

Detaining family members—the women and children —simply because of their familial ties with male ISIS suspects is collective punishment. Certainly the children are victims, first and foremost, and they should bear no responsibility for the actions of their parents. Many of the adults may themselves be victims as well. The women may have been trafficked into Syria. They may be victims of ISIS themselves, as is possible for the men.

Yes, certainly Canada is in breach of international law by continuously allowing Canadian nationals to be arbitrarily detained indefinitely without taking concrete steps to ensure their safety and well-being.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One thing you spoke about, Mr. Mohammed, is the idea that when we see that we are very clearly in contravention of international acts and regulations and that we are very clearly not aligned with international humanitarian and human rights law, the Canadian government faces an enormous credibility risk.

Could you talk a little bit more about the risk to our reputation, our credibility and our ability to play a meaningful role in stopping similar atrocities around the world?

[Justin Mohammed]

Yes. Thank you.

I think the challenges raised by these international human rights violations—the ones that have been mentioned by the previous speakers—already set the context for that. Whenever Canada is going to be standing up about these international human rights obligations in the international community and demanding action and demanding that other countries take action on these questions, there will be a credibility deficit.

One of the things I mentioned in that context was the recent initiative around state-to-state arbitrary detention. How can Canada be speaking with a powerful international voice about the question of arbitrary detention when it has the capacity to end the arbitrary detention of Canadian citizens in northeast Syria and, unfortunately, is not taking action?

The same is true, of course, of the other example that I brought up, around a feminist foreign policy. We have a situation here in which some of the acts that Ms. Deif just mentioned could have taken place. We don't know entirely the context, but we do know that the violations they're undergoing right now are ones that include gender-based violence.

How can Canada be on the international stage promoting a feminist foreign policy when the gender-based violence that's being visited upon Canadian citizens in these camps has not been addressed? It is entirely possible for the Government of Canada to address them. This is a real credibility risk on our foreign policy, and it's something I think the subcommittee is squarely in the position to raise.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's heartbreaking for me, because I see Canadians being justifiably proud of our past and the things we've done in the past to promote human rights around the world. To see our reputation be so damaged and so at risk is really heartbreaking.

I have one last thing I thought I would ask, Mr. Mohammed. This is the international human rights subcommittee. Do you have any concerns about the subcommittee's ability to call out international human rights abuses that are happening by our own government?

[Justin Mohammed]

Not at all. I think the mandate of this committee is to deal with international human rights violations, and yes, it is mentioned in the mandate that it is primarily focused outside of violations that take place in Canada, but of course these violations are taking place outside of Canada. It is very rare that we have a situation in which a group of Canadian citizens would be subject to international human rights violations outside of Canada. This is absolutely something that the committee should take up.

Looking again at the previous statements that have been made on so many human rights issues around the world, it would be a real shame, in the view of Amnesty International, for this to escape the same requisite attention. It would, quite frankly, show a lack of parallel in looking outside of Canada to ensure that those international rights are respected, but not for Canadian citizens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Mohammed.

That will conclude this session.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us, answering our questions, and providing their statements.

Members, we are now going to suspend for five to 10 minutes as we get ready for the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome back, everyone.

Just to ensure an orderly meeting, I'm going to encourage all participants to mute their microphones when they're not speaking.

Please provide all comments through the chair. When you have 30 seconds in your question time left, I'll put up this sign to signal you. For those who require interpretation, English or French, it's available through the globe icon at the bottom of your screen. Please note, everyone, that screen captures and photos are not permitted.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses, although we're not sure if it's plural. We have one witness anyway. We have with us tonight Juan Pappier, Americas senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.

Mr. Pappier, you will have six minutes for your opening statement.

[Juan Pappier, Americas Senior researcher, Human Rights Watch]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is an honour for me to be here before this committee on behalf of Human Rights Watch to discuss the situation in Colombia.

This meeting, I must say, could not have taken place at a more timely moment. Colombia is living with the highest levels of social unrest in recent decades. Since April 28, thousands of Colombians have taken to the streets in cities across the country to protest a proposed tax reform. The government withdrew the tax reform days later, but the demonstrations continue against other government policies.

While some demonstrators have engaged in serious events of violence, most have been peaceful. [Technical difficulty—Editor] Human Rights Watch has a team of researchers currently documenting the situation. We have received reports of 47 deaths since the protests began. In at least 10 cases, initial evidence suggests that police officers may be responsible. We have also documented several cases of beatings, arbitrary detention and even sexual violence against women protesters.

The situation in Colombia is of concern not only because of these demonstrations. Violence by armed groups, including guerillas, groups involved in drug trafficking, groups that emerged from the FARC guerillas, and others has intensified in recent years in Colombia. While the national homicide rate has decreased, some remote areas across the country have a serious risk of returning to the levels of violence that existed prior to the 2016 peace accord with the FARC guerillas.

The year 2020 had the highest number of human rights defenders killed in Colombia at least since the signing of the peace accord. According to our country's ombudsperson's office, 182 human rights defenders were killed last year. These figures show that Colombia had one of the highest numbers of human rights defenders killed globally. Additionally, according to UN figures, there were 76 massacres in 2020. That is the highest figure since 2014.

In a report released in February 2020, Human Rights Watch documented that most of the mechanisms to protect people in these vulnerable communities have serious shortcomings or are barely functioning. The protection by government entities of people at risk of facing abuses by armed groups is very limited. We presented the findings of our report to President Ivan Duque, the President of Colombia, and provided him with a list of concrete recommendations to address this issue. Unfortunately, however, we have seen no indication that he and his government are willing to change course.

Members of the committee, I welcome this important meeting at a critical time for Colombia. The situation in the country, both in cities where people are demonstrating and in rural areas, is worrying and needs international scrutiny, including from Canadian authorities.

I will leave my presentation here. I am happy to respond to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Pappier.

I don't think our other witness is ready, Clerk, to make a statement.

Okay. Then we are going to move to questions.

Our first questions will be from MP Sidhu, for—

[The Clerk]

Actually, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; in the seconds between my answer and now, he has rejoined us, so I'm going to bring him back into the meeting.